Get Boards

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only 'list' action and the 'all boards' scope, but does not clarify whether archived boards are included, ordering, or pagination behavior. Adequate for a simple list, but not richly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant wording. The key action and scope are front-loaded, making it highly scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is low-complexity with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral detail beyond the core action, an agent must infer some context about projectId and result scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'in a project' hints that projectId identifies the containing project, but it does not explicitly define the parameter, its format, or how to obtain the ID. Given the low coverage, this is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'List all boards in a project', and clearly distinguishes itself from singular siblings like get_board. It immediately conveys both the action and the scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool—when all boards of a project are needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_board or provide exclusion criteria. There is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.